The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a
flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier
hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing
ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate
scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered
questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and
phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of
climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is
in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore
conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a
manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

This is a news story? I'd give it five stars as a pure propaganda piece.

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of
the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact
to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19
scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19
scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its
article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific
“skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

They also challenged Gore's over-reliance on the questionable "hockey-stick" climate model as well as several other controversial claims made in the movie.

And those "global warming" skeptics? There is an abundance of them, and they have been quite vocal:

Here's the truth: the Earth's climate is a gigantic, complex
non-linear system. Our understanding of this system is primitive at
best. But what we do understand about non-linear systems seems to tell
us that they are in a constant state of flux. Minute changes
in initial conditions can propagate through the system and create
drastically different final results. Climatologists call this "the
butterfly effect": the air displaced by a butterfly flapping its wings
in Asia might eventually produce a hurricane in the Atlantic.

This constant state of flux naturally means that the Earth's climate
will change over periods of time, sometimes becoming cooler and
sometimes becoming warmer. I am constantly amazed by scientists and
others who place so much faith in Darwinism and natural selection --
theories that predict ever-changing diversity of life while denying the
necessity of an outside force to influence these changes -- but who
concurrently believe that global climate change can only be caused by an outside force.

Here's the problem: the cause and effect relationship between mankind and global climate change is still a complete mystery.
Global climate change -- that is, the natural flux in the climate
system -- would occur whether or not there was a single human on planet
Earth. Yet people like Al Gore insist on blaming climate change
exclusively on mankind, specifically the United States of America, oil
companies, and the Republicans.

And in order to support these controversial claims, Gore and Co. make idiotic statements like this:

Gore says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking
us to China, he ignores the filth spewed into the air by its coal-fired
cities. He does not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical
masks outdoors and pause to hawk up brown gunk every few minutes.
Instead, he tells us America is lagging behind. "China," he says, "is
on the cutting edge" of environmentalism. Nonsense.

Read for yourself what is going on in China, and also in developing
countries like Indonesia, India, and Mexico, all of which spew millions
of tons of pollutants into their air every year:

"A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about 30% of China's total land area. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China's coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution."

"Among the many facts highlighting the new role of China, the report
says the country now accounts for 27 percent of the world’s steel
output, consuming huge amounts of coal and power.

The
report also cited a World Bank study showing that more than 80 percent
of the Chinese cities surveyed had sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide
levels above maximum guideline levels set by the World Health
Organization.

Nearly half the cities with excessive sulphur emissions registered at more than double the standard, Worldwatch said.

According
to World Bank estimates cited by the report, some 590,000 people a year
will suffer premature deaths due to urban air pollution in China
between 2001 and 2020."

China is making some progress, but its rapid industrial growth is far exceeding efforts to minimize pollution. Pollution control devices are expensive, and developing industrial nations have neither the money to pay for them, the patience to monitor them, nor the will to lessen profits for the benefit of the environment.

Admittedly, pollution is a problem. Pollution does alter the environment. As caretakers of the Earth -- more so as Christians -- we have an obligation to reduce pollution and its impact on our environment to the greatest extent possible. And when we have undeniable evidence that proves mankind's actions are responsible for environmental degradation, we are obligated to fix the problem. I think that almost everyone would agree on that.

But "global warming" does not fit that scenario. Even if the climate is warming, there is little evidence to suggest that mankind was solely responsible for pushing the inevitable climate changes in that direction. Further, we have no idea how to alter a global warming trend. We have no absolute assurance that a large-scale man-made "solution" would not accidentally result in a global environmental catastrophe.

And at the same time, we need to be honest about the truth. No other nation has spent more money developing pollution-controlling technology than the United States. No other nation acted sooner and on such a grand scale to reduce environmental pollution as the United States. No other nation exports more pollution control technology than the United States. And when you compare America's total industrial production to the amount of pollutants we emit, our performance is outstanding.

I am thoroughly convinced that the "global warming" crowd is nothing more than a group of individuals continuing the work of previous generations of socialists: blaming America for the world's problems and then attempting to extort money as a form of penance, perhaps with the effect of crippling America's status as a superpower. It's a political agenda, not a scientific "fact."

Comments

Tim Lambert is afraid that the Senate press release gets the science wrong? I thought they were citing scientific findings. Hmmm...Maybe they're just not liberal enough to be "scientific".
The liberals' new way to shut up their critics: (A la Al, with an arrogant smirk) "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" or "If you disagree with us, you have bought off by large corporations, and therefore, you're opinion is useless."
Also, it's nice that the separation-of-church-and-state liberals like Sen. Boxer (on other page) found an exception to their Establishment Clause ideology -- just in time to inform us that God Himself supports Al Gore's socialist power grab.

It's terrible how the pollution has increased in the last years around the world. However, China present the most incredible increase, but is because the chinese population don't do anything to stop it.